Possible Monogamy Gene Found In People 440
Calopteryx sends in a New Scientist summary of research from Sweden pointing toward the existence of a gene that influences monogamy in men. (The article doesn't mention women, and the study subjects were all men at least 5 years into a heterosexual relationship.) "There has been speculation about the role of the hormone vasopressin in humans ever since we discovered that variations in where receptors for the hormone are expressed makes prairie voles strictly monogamous but meadow voles promiscuous; vasopressin is related to the 'cuddle chemical' oxytocin. Now it seems variations in a section of the gene coding for a vasopressin receptor in people help to determine whether men are serial commitment-phobes or devoted husbands."
George Clooney dubs it: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:George Clooney dubs it: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:George Clooney dubs it: (Score:5, Funny)
Of course.
Those in monogamous relationships get sex on demand and home cooked meals!
All my married friends tell me that.
Re:George Clooney dubs it: (Score:5, Insightful)
They lie to you. Oh man do they lie. They probably do it so that you will join them in their misery, misery loves company and all that.
Anyhow, now that there's a gene for it and I obviously don't have it, I have a scientific excuse. ;)
Re:George Clooney dubs it: (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it's not a lie. Like everything, there are of course exceptions, so I'm sure some people do lie, but I get all of the above. And my wife is wonderful. I love being married. So yeah, if you wanna delude yourself out of the fun, go ahead... but consider the fact that you haven't tried being married, so how would you know the truth? Married men are inherently credible when talking about this issue, and unmarried men are without credibility, for the following reason: all us married men have been both single and married, and I personally can say that after trying both, marriage is far superior.
Sorry, but as a creature of reason and logic (which your appeal to science shows that you are), you are still without excuse. Anyone who claims reason has the tools necessary to rise above base animal instincts and live differently. Whether this alleged gene actually is proven to be true or not, the "serial non-commiters" still have no excuse to use the women around them.
As humans, we have to rise above this non-commitment, because regardless of a specific gene, societies in which commitments are made and upheld are inherently more stable and peaceful than those in which no one can trust anyone's word. As humans, our goal should be to form stable societies that are best for us, not to follow our genetic dispositions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As humans, we have to rise above this non-commitment, because regardless of a specific gene, societies in which commitments are made and upheld are inherently more stable and peaceful than those in which no one can trust anyone's word. As humans, our goal should be to form stable societies that are best for us, not to follow our genetic dispositions.
Except that we're talking about monogamy, not commitment. It is possible to be in a committed relationship, have sexual relations with more than one person and not be dishonest about it. Since we're talking about logic, reason and whatnot. It is also quite possible to have a stable and trusting society where this behaviour is not taboo.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Though what this piece did NOT go into is the differnce between people who can't commit, people who are monogamous, and people who are poly
Unfortunatly researchers usually don't bother to figure out the differnce between group 1 and group 3, and in fact many who display group 1 behavior are actually group 3 and are QUITE capable of long term commited relationships,.. when the relationships are poly structured rather then mono.
So the problem isn't 'rising above non-commitment', but one of finding out what co
Re:George Clooney dubs it: (Score:5, Insightful)
Or rather : in different circumstances monogamy may provide an evolutionary advantage. If you intend to wage unceasing war ("live off the land" (and the passersby)), for example, monogamy would be a bad idea, since lots of men will die, leaving behind women, even though some limit would be good (say you expect 50% of the men to be involved in war, then you should allow 2 women to one man, if you expect between 75 and 90% of your society to be dedicated to war, then 4 women to 1 man seems appropriate (and obviously only to men who can afford not to be on the frontlines, who should basically stay away from women, except the occasional rape of a succesful raid) (then again, in war, are limits like these really going to be respected ?). If you allow without limit (or allow polygamy + concubines) then clearly you expect to do nothing else than warfare, and marriage means nothing except for inheritance.
In peace, you'd need to prevent men remaining behind alone without partner (because for every extra woman one man has, another has to do without, 4 women to one man would become 75% of men without contact with women in extremis, realistically, say 50% of men, 4 women + unlimited (and exclusive) concubines would mean something like 999/1000 of men without partner, in some cultures that is normal, or was normal not too long ago), as that will certainly not be helpful in helping them build instead of destroying society, therefore in a peaceful setting, you'd want monogamy.
The fact that genes start expressing it is not very surprising. Polygamous cultures are known for being more than a little agressive, and genes are how humans adapt to their environment. If the environment or the culture changes to be less suitable for agriculture (or the culture doesn't know, or incorrectly conducts agriculture, e.g. predatory agriculture, or not doing anything about overpopulation, or ...) the genes will adapt to become less monogamous.
If raiding is basically impossible, for whatever reason, building things will become important, and monogamous relationships become an evolutionary advantage. Certainly after 10 generations the effects will be very noticeable.
Since this gene will very much influence how agressive people are against "other tribes", it is one of the prime parameters that will determine the layout of the resulting society, and may introduce all sorts of limits (e.g. agressive societies will never have any population density for obvious reasons, which can easily translate in a very low maximum population limit)
Monogamy is great! I want to promote it! (Score:5, Funny)
If I had one of those monogamy genes, I'd want to help it thrive - so I'd go find a bunch o' girls and get 'em pregnant...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You joke now, but once they come up with a DIY test kit for "multiple cunt personality" genetic, guess what type of men will get all the pussy?
Re:Study shows 1 in 2 people are monogomous...(fix (Score:5, Funny)
This is slashdot. Which means that a lot of those non-polys ain't mono, they're zippo.
Disablites Act (Score:4, Funny)
Anyone want to start suggesting a relevant text for the update to the americans with disabilities act
Re:Disablites Act (Score:5, Funny)
"No really babe, I've got a mutation in my monogamy gene. I HAVE to sleep around, or I'll die."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, we may joke about this, but it's serious. People who are socially inept are certainly discriminated against, but the legislatures and Congress don't seem to be in the same hurry to pass laws against such discrimination. Which in turn, is due to a public that is indifferent to the suffering of such people. And no, it's not something that's easy to change: people are are socially *competent* don't realize that some things come naturally to them but not others.
(And yes, I know you can say that bei
Re:Disablites Act (Score:4, Insightful)
The day nerds become a protected subspecies is the day I give up on humanity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yeah nerds in PR are going to hurt the company a lot more than the narcissistic PHBs in management will.
A whole new round of testing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A whole new round of testing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A whole new round of testing (Score:5, Funny)
Does it have anything to do with the phrase he coined: "insanely monogmous"? Spelling aside, how are you insanely monogamous? Isn't that a little like saying someone is "Extremely not on fire?"
Re:A whole new round of testing (Score:5, Funny)
I just looked around - I'm in an air conditioned office, no sources of ignition around me, sitting cool and comfortable and extremely not on fire... No wait, Bob just lit a cigarette, so I'm down to thoroughly not on fire... No, Bob's running around with his tie in flames right now, so I guess I'm moderately not on fire... Whoops, dodging a flaming Bob, but I'm still marginally not on fire...
And the Slashdot Gene (Score:5, Funny)
which renders someone unable to get any at all.
Re:And the Slashdot Gene (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And the Slashdot Gene (Score:5, Funny)
Honestly; would ANYONE want to cuddle a meadow vole?
Too much time, large research grant on their hands...
Re:And the Slashdot Gene (Score:5, Insightful)
And like winning the lottery twice, the slashdot men that do marry are quite unlikely to find another. A predisposition for involuntary celibacy is a predictor for monogomy.
Great!!! [whatever] Control pills (Score:5, Funny)
What happens if we miss a day? Do we take two then next and use alternate husband control methods. -- Sarcasm transmits across TCP/IP as well as it does other media
Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills (Score:4, Funny)
In the early 60's we got birth control pills, which (some say) facilitated women being promiscuous. Now, we have 'husband control pills'
What happens if we miss a day? Do we take two then next and use alternate husband control methods.
Well to be safe you'd need to avoid monogamy for at least a month after missing a pill...
Re: (Score:2)
It may be cheaper then a divorce.
However like most genes they give a tendency not the actual action. Men can be monogamous for life, even without that gene, because of free will, cultural norms, religious beliefs, finding an other woman is much to hard, etc... Also the inverse can be true men with the gene could be a lying cheating guy, while the gene may make him connect to one it doesn't stop him to try for others.
Dangers I can see is taking a genetic test say before marriage and men without the genes wil
Danger? What danger!? (Score:2)
Dangers I can see is taking a genetic test say before marriage and men without the genes will just be dumped on the spot.
Heck, I could see men DEMANDING such a test, for the very same reason.
Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate to kick the barstool out from under y'all, but Jeebuz, you folks act like a gene sequence removes all thought from the equation.
I don't sleep around because I love my wife and extra-marital affairs have a tendency to remove MARRIAGES. Quite frankly, it is my head, and the thoughts within, that decide my actions, not the genes passed on to me. Genes may have some effect, but if the result is not acceptable to the thinking part of me, they are simply over-ridden.
Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is that the genes determine, or at least influence, what the "thinking part" of you find acceptable.
You are not consciousness inhabiting a body. You are consciousness generated by a body. The nature of that consciousness is determined by the nature of the body. The nature of the body is determined by genetics and by environment.
Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills (Score:5, Interesting)
Congrats on the impossible to prove otherwise post!
There is no way to prove that your genes are not influencing you.
However since identical twins separated at birth have many mental similarities, I'm going to go with gene's influence you more than you know.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/twins/twins2.htm [washingtonpost.com]
Gene also known to recede (Score:5, Funny)
When confronted by large quantities of beer protein.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not always a gene... (Score:5, Funny)
In my case, it's a "Martha" that has the greatest influence over my monogamous inclinations.
Re: (Score:2)
Does she take your balls out of her purse every once in a while to let you know what they look like? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing our cat missed his (always looking for them), we put a pair of 1/4" galvanized nuts on his collar. Didn't have brass ones to give him. But he seemed just as happy.
Gave us a laugh every time we'd hear him jingling down the hall. And luckily my wife never suggested we do the same to me.
I think (Score:2)
I think my monogamy gene is recessive.
Jumping the gun (Score:2, Funny)
Further finding not mentioned in the summary (Score:3, Funny)
They also found that geeks tended to possess just half of this gene, which researchers postulate may explain their lack of ability to get a girlfriend.
i don't believe it (Score:4, Interesting)
monogamy in general seems to be a mirage
there are of course places in the world where polygamy is openly accepted, but in places where monogamy dominates publicly, everyone is polygamous in secret
and i am talking about men AND women. male polygamy gets more attention only because male polygamy is more public, male sexuality full of more bravado. women are just better at keeping secrets
and it makes perfect sense for men and women. men for for the obvious ability to spread more genes, and women for access to more resources, or simply to get better genes in secret than the genes of the publicly acknowledged mate (it has been speculated something like 10% of children before the era of genetic testing were raised by fathers who weren't really their genetic fathers)
i think that any gene that regulates vasopressin simply regulates how discrete or not discrete a male is going about being secretly or openly polygamous
there is just too much incentive, genetically, to spread your seed as wide as possible, no matter what
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you saying that it doesn't exist, or that it's just rarer than we pretend?
Consider that if ~ 50% of married people are adulterous, then there's a huge fraction (~ 50%) who are monogamous.
Re: (Score:2)
there is just too much incentive, genetically, to spread your seed as wide as possible, no matter what
Unless, perhaps, there is not. You make many assumptions based on this core idea that polygamy is some kind of natural tendency, and you have some interesting hypotheses to back it up, but the data doesn't seem to back you.
Re: (Score:2)
"there is just too much incentive, genetically, to spread your seed as wide as possible, no matter what"
There is the matter of quality over quantity. If you spread your genes so far and wide that they are doomed to die or be at a disadvantage because they are lacking in support is that better than fewer more cared for who will almost certainly themselves go on to breed.
Re: (Score:2)
While I disagree with the GP post, I can't really agree with you either.
If you spread your genes so far and wide that they are doomed to die or be at a disadvantage because they are lacking in support is that better than fewer more cared for who will almost certainly themselves go on to breed.
The answer, is yes if you can have both. If a man can have many anonomous affairs with little to no cost as well as raise a traditional and stable family, then they are genetically better off to do so. Of course, you can argue that there are risks involved in adultery, such as your wife leaving you and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
The Hollywood/Hallmark monogamous view of love is a relatively modern invention. Historically people have tended to marry for practical reasons, and dowry was a big factor in the west (and still is in many cultures). Marriage has historically been a business transaction, not an emotional one.
This "study" is just yet another example of correlation-does-not-equal-causation -- an
Damn that love thing ..... (Score:4, Insightful)
One researcher found that the overwhelming contribution to the increased rate of divorce is the modern concept of marriage for love instead of position/wealth. The current divorce trend is simply the end result of a curve started in the years following the civil war.
So if these conservatives want to go back to an idyllic time with low divorce & happy families - I say bring back arranged marriages.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never had the slightest interest in anything except strict monogamy.
Re:i don't believe it (Score:5, Funny)
I've never had the slightest interest in anything except strict monogamy.
You sir, lack imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
How does this have anything to do with "imagination?" There are many reasons why I don't like polygamy, and if you can't deal with that then tough shit. Go cry in the corner.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. My interest is to be monogamous with my girlfriend and her hot best friend at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason why monogamy appeared is because of jaleous, unconfident males who could not accept that their mate go elsewhere and find more satisfaction in a relationship. So monogamy is no more than a socia
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because someone has the desire to be non-monogamous does not mean that they cheat on their significant others.
Re: (Score:2)
no.. but it doesn't mean that alot of humanity wants to be unfaithful.. or would be if they could get away with it.
we do it all the time with other gene's.. for example i have several genetic diseases that if it wasn't for the advances in medicine would render me dead before i was 1 year old.
Easy to spot the folks without the gene... (Score:2, Funny)
gene therapy and evolution (Score:2)
I heard about this a few years ago...I wonder how long it'll be before spouses are asking science to do gene therapy to fix their loved one.
grrr...as much as I believe cheating is bad for everyone involved, there has got to be evolutionary reasons why their are differences and fixing everyone to one type sounds like a dumb idea as a species.
Oxytocin? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh great.. one more test to take! (Score:4, Funny)
Now your GF/Wife will want you to take the "Cheating bastard" DNA test too.
so is cheatin' genetic, too? (Score:3, Informative)
Definitions
Polygamy: one too many wives
Monogamy: see "Polygamy"
No Monogamy Gene (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's say that we go 10,000 years back. Why would a man not screw around as much as possible? And if love existed, who's to say that it lasted for long periods? I remember reading an article that stated that "love" is a chemical reaction that lasts roughly six months, given or take a couple of months. I guess it's enough time to bond and mate.
Maybe this "monogamy gene" relates to something totally different, but has altered effects because of traditions that have grown with religions?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hrmmmm...
As far as I can tell, from literature in polygamist cultures, the jealousy gene is 100% present in females and males of the species. Therefore, it would seem that a barter system would evolve. The higher your wealth is above the mean of the society that you live in, the more likely that you will be able to entice potential partners into a 'mutually beneficial' relationship. The wealth assuages the greater portion of the jealousy, while other services alleviate the remainder.
Re:No Monogamy Gene (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would a man not screw around as much as possible?
In short, because our young are vulnerable after birth, require a fairly large energy investment, and are few in number.
Monogamy actually appears in a number of different animal species.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why would a man not screw around as much as possible?
In short, because our young are vulnerable after birth, require a fairly large energy investment, and are few in number.
As a new father I have to say I concur! Well that, and the fact that my wife's got a black belt in Karate.
(I kid, though she does really have a black belt)
Re:No Monogamy Gene (Score:4, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-selection#K-selection [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So, in essence, you believe penguins are religious...
Re: (Score:2)
Though I must say it brings an interesting connotation and often overlooked piece of the Apple logo (just one bite missing...)
Re:No Monogamy Gene (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say that we go 10,000 years back. Why would a man not screw around as much as possible?
Lots of reasons...
Inability to find good mates... Ideal mothers for your children would reject you knowing that you wouldn't provide for them?
Low chance of offspring surviving... mothers would be unable to care for your children, and unable to find mates willing help them?
Societal acceptance... e.g. The other men would stone him? Stone the women he cheated with? Stone his offspring?
Monogamy exists in nature. There are reasons for why it works where it exists.
And if love existed, who's to say that it lasted for long periods?
Indeed. Monogamy isn't necessarily 'till death to we part' in modern society at least it simply means not cheating on your partner. It is entirely possible to marry, raise a child, separate, marry someone else, and even raise another child, all within the confines of monogamy.
Hell when I was a teen, most of us were pretty monogamous; its not that we all married our first crush, but rather that our teen years were a succession of monogamous relationships of varying lengths, some quite brief, and punctuated with periods of being 'single'.
And yes some people who were supposedly 'in a relationship' cheated, and when caught it carried a stigma, one that I would say definitely impacted their dating prospects in the circles where it was known that they cheated (applied to both males and females).
Once a cheater, always a cheater? (Score:2)
So does this research suggest that the old saying "Once a cheater, always a cheater" is actually true?
Exciting news. (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry baby, I'm a cheater, `cause it's in the DNA. (Score:3, Funny)
interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:interesting... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:interesting... (Score:4, Informative)
Don't blame the grand-parent, the article refers to a "monogamy gene" but I doubt prairie voles are getting married. (If I'm wrong, please post video of a prairie vole wedding, because that sounds neat.)
So, he's misusing "polygamous" the same way the article misused "monogamous."
Re:interesting... (Score:4, Funny)
Bah. (Score:2)
knock-outs (Score:2)
And in other news...a population of MONOG gene knock-out mice has just moved to Utah.
Well that (Score:2)
Stereotype much? (Score:2)
Nothing like adding a little judgmental stereotyping in there, eh? I'm a polyamorous, male, and live with my wife of 8 years, my other primary, and have a secondary in another location, all well aware of each other and all also poly. (Plus my kid, and my o.p.'s 3 kids, & some of wife & o.p.'s other relationships) My longest running relationship of spans 15 years.
Of course this might confuse the average slashdotter (who, the stereotype says, has no women in h
If we were monogamous (Score:2, Insightful)
If humans were meant to be monogamous, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It would be a given and a non-issue. Non-monogamy would be something lesser beasts do and would strike us as odd and curious behavior.
Asking humans to be monogamous is like asking a cat to NOT chase a mouse. "Did you SEE her tits? Of COURSE I hit that. I'd be gay if it didn't!"
Marriage is a system invented by men with power to make alliances and to manage inheritance of power. The whole love thing is very 20th century.
I got your "monogamy gene" (Score:3)
yo, I got your "monogamy gene" right over here! ... right over here with the paternity tests Maury uses.
eharmony listing (Score:3, Funny)
So is "Genetically Monogomous" going to be incorporated into eharmony profiles?
A place where this gene might be absent: (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't have to go 10,000 years back (as a previous poster stated) to see where this gene might be disadvantageous. Try a mere 120(ish). I read a artistic biography about Paul Gauguin in my Psychoanalytic Approach to Art class (it was one of those classes that I took just to call 'bulls$hit' but ended up learning something) and he described at great length the sexual practices of the people of Mataiea village.
Essentially, the people of the village were grouped into four "sections". You had:
Every night, a particular woman was selected (or several), and the able, fertile males - for lack of a better expression in a public forum - "had at her." All at once.
The idea behind this was that this would ensure that the woman would be impregnated after a time, and that the most fertile male sperm would "compete" for the egg, ensuring that it was the most fit to be born. Also, the men would never know which children were explicitly theirs - and the women would never know who the real father was - so the community as a whole would raise the child.
To (most) Western standards, this is pretty gross. To Gauguin, it was fascinating. However, you could see how a "monogamy gene" would not be advantageous in such a circumstance. The book - and Gauguin's writings - seemed to indicate that more 'sensitive' men , who may possess this gene, were thrown in the third group because they were not considered true "men". (Homosexuals were also in this group, for the record.)
Also, in closing, I'd like to point out that this society landed itself absolutely nowhere. Most successful empires/expansions of human civilization relied on monogamous culture - after all, you needed an heir to hand a crown to, and the wars between siblings were already bad enough without having to choose which *mother* produced the rightful heir. (Although, that happened regardless).
Re: (Score:2)
Dawkins argues against this. You're talking about genetic evolution competing with social evolution via memes and reproducing at a much faster rate.
Re:Hhhmm, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You gotta fuck it out of the system first, and there is a hell of a lot of people on the planet, plus it could be on the rise in one country/area, or in decline in another.
You also have to factor in things like society, which can promote monogamy one decade, and not the next, and many will listen to that rather than themselves which would eventually promote one or the other, even if only in small strains, unless there was a food/water shortage, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Thus, in a situat
Re:Hhhmm, (Score:5, Funny)
In our current society, monogamy makes more sense.
Until you see the hot little redhead that just moved in across the street from me. Then polygamy starts looking pretty damn good again.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Only on slashdot would that comment be modded both informative and insightful.
You must be female, and have little interaction with males.
Re:Hhhmm, (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you might be wrong there.
In a welfare/socialist society, polygamy and promiscuety make more (evolutionary) sense for men.
Which would you rather be: 1) the guy that sleeps around with lots of women and gets lots of kids, or 2) the guy that stays with a single woman and gets taxed to death to support all the single mothers, left over from the first guy.?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about 3) the guy that sleeps around with lots of women and has no kids?
Effective birth control exists. Use it.
Re:Hhhmm, (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't evolution sided with either monogamy or polygamy? I mean even if there is only a one percent difference between the successor rates should that have not been reflected by now?
If monogamy or the lack thereof were genetic and there were an evolutionary advantage to either strategy, then you're right: that should have been reflected in the general population.
Since it doesn't seem to be, that would seem to indicate that perhaps there is no evolutionary advantage to either side. With no advantage, there is no pressure for humanity to tend in one direction or the other. That could yield a pattern closer to what we are seeing now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since it doesn't seem to be, that would seem to indicate that perhaps there is no evolutionary advantage to either side. With no advantage, there is no pressure for humanity to tend in one direction or the other. That could yield a pattern closer to what we are seeing now.
Or it could be that it's a mixed strategy equilibrium in which case it makes sense for a certain percentage of people to be monogamous and the rest not to be.
Would one non-monogamous guy be at an advantage in an otherwise monogamous society? Possibly -- he'd be able to father more children that way. Would one monogamous guy be at an advantage in an otherwise non-monogamous society? Possibly -- since everyone else doesn't really stick around to take care of their kids, his children would be better cared for
Re:Hhhmm, (Score:5, Informative)
No. It shouldn't have, because either strategy can lend itself to evolutionary success for men.
If you're a powerful man, polygamy is an excellent strategy. You want to be impregnating every woman you can get your hands on, and you can by force and/or intimidation (among other motivators). Genghis Khan is an exemplar of this (at least according to one study that something like 6% of the world's men are his descendants). With that many kids, you don't need to invest very much in making sure each kid survives long enough to reproduce.
If you're a powerless man, then your best strategy is monogamy: you aim to have one woman who you reproduce with, and devote lots of time and energy into making sure that those kids survive. This leads to the nerds who will love a woman forever and stick with her through sickness and health.
If you're somewhere in between on the power scale, then the strategy seems to be pretending monogamy while having at least one mistress on the side. The theory here is that you get the greater number of kids and genetic variation from having more partners, but a fallback position of the kids from your "monogamous" relationship. Hence middle-management types cheating on their wives.
Re:Hhhmm, (Score:4, Insightful)
And the women, they're looking for a powerful man to knock them up, and a nice dedicated man to stick with her and raise a family.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I (like most /.ers) am at the powerless end of the scale.
Re:Hhhmm, (Score:5, Interesting)
Because which strategy works better would depend on what strategy everyone else in the local population is following. You end up with an stable equilibrium proportion where both strategies work equally well, all things being equal, but if you perturb it slightly the one becomes slightly more advantageous than the other and reproduces faster until the equilibrium is restored.
Re:Hhhmm, (Score:4, Informative)
The adaptive value of a trait can and does vary depending on its environment and the environment is different depending on how common the trait is. For traits having to do with deception, you tend to see some sort of equilibrium. Typically, a naive and honest population does better than a dishonest and suspicious one, because they don't waste resources on deception and deception detection. If, however, a lone cheater shows up in a naive and honest population, the cheater will do extraordinarily well. This will cause cheating to increase in frequency, and will create a selective pressure in favor of being able to detect cheaters. Sometimes, the cheaters tip the balance, and a naive and honest population becomes a suspicious and deceptive one, sometimes cheater detection is good enough to wipe out the cheaters, and often the two traits find an equilibrium point. The suspicion required to eliminate all cheaters will be too costly to be adaptive; but cheating will only work sometimes, and on a limited scale.
With the possible exception of simple deleterious mutations, traits are not absolutely better or worse, their value depends on their environment, and their environment depends in part on them. Just looking at the values of the traits at the beginning isn't good enough, you need to use a game theory approach, and look at the value of the traits across repeated rounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While this paper looks rather preliminary, it looks like a sound test of expectations developed through prior research in animal behavior and genetics. A good deal of "hard" work poking at the gene and its effects in animals already exists, isn't it perfectly logical to attempt to apply the existing data to humans?